An Optimization for the Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)
RFC 7466

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'The link quality mechanism of the Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP) enables "ignoring" some 1-hop neighbors if the measured link quality from that 1-hop neighbor is below an acceptable threshold while still retaining the corresponding link information as acquired from the HELLO message exchange. This allows immediate reinstatement of the 1-hop neighbor if the link quality later improves sufficiently.

NHDP also collects information about symmetric 2-hop neighbors. However, it specifies that if a link from a symmetric 1-hop neighbor ceases being symmetric, including while "ignored" (as described above), then corresponding symmetric 2-hop neighbors are removed. This may lead to symmetric 2-hop neighborhood information being permanently removed (until further HELLO messages are received) if the link quality of a symmetric 1-hop neighbor drops below the acceptable threshold, even if only for a moment.

This specification updates RFC 6130 "Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)" and RFC 7181 "The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2 (OLSRv2)" to permit, as an option, retaining, but ignoring, symmetric 2-hop information when the link quality from the corresponding 1-hop neighbor drops below the acceptable threshold. This allows immediate reinstatement of the symmetric 2-hop neighbor if the link quality later improves sufficiently, thus making the symmetric 2-hop neighborhood more "robust".')

[Ballot comment]
= Section 3 =
"This specification also updates [RFC7181].  This could be avoided by
  simply noting that ..."

This doesn't quite make sense. Maybe it should say "This could have been avoided"? Or maybe this paragraph is really about the mechanism as opposed to the spec updating 7181? I thought the way this was explained in Section 1 was sufficient and made sense.

[Ballot comment]
No objection, and no comments directly on the document -- it looks fine, clear, and sensible.

The shepherd writeup momentarily alarmed me with this:

        There were some concerns regarding a missing
        quantitative evaluation of the performance improvement of the
        specified optimization from Abdussalam Baryun. Nobody else shared
        his concerns, and he can therefore be considered to be "in the rough".

One is not in the rough just because no one shares his concern: if he has a technical argument that has not been properly addressed, it matters not that he's a lone wolf howling... the argument remains open.

So I went to the manet mailing list and checked, and I'm convinced that it is *not* the case that he's a lone wolf.  I believe his issue was addressed, that he is, indeed, in the rough, and that I was alarmed unnecessarily.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization-03, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (An Optimization for the MANET Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG
(manet) to consider the following document:
- 'An Optimization for the MANET Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-11-03. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

  The link quality mechanism of the MANET Neighborhood Discovery
  Protocol (NHDP) enables "ignoring" some 1-hop neighbors if the
  measured link quality from that 1-hop neighbor is below an acceptable
  threshold, while still retaining the corresponding link information
  as acquired from HELLO message exchange.  This allows immediate
  reinstatement of the 1-hop neighbor if the link quality later
  improves sufficiently.

  NHDP also collects information about symmetric 2-hop neighbors.
  However it specifies that if a link from a symmetric 1-hop neighbor
  ceases being symmetric, including while "ignored" as described above,
  then corresponding symmetric 2-hop neighbors are removed.  This may
  lead to symmetric 2-hop neighborhood information being permanently
  removed (until further HELLO messages are received) if the link
  quality of a symmetric 1-hop neighbor drops below the acceptable
  threshold, even if only for a moment.

  This specification updates RFC6130 "Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET)
  Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)", and RFC7181 "The Optimized
  Link State Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2)" to permit retaining,
  but ignoring, symmetric 2-hop information when the link quality from
  the corresponding 1-hop neighbor drops below the acceptable
  threshold.  This allows immediate reinstatement of the symmetric
  2-hop neighbor if the link quality later improves sufficiently, thus
  making the symmetric 2-hop neighborhood more "robust".


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

AD review
======

Authors,

Thanks for this document. I have done my AD review and have nothing to
add except to note that your work probably makes a slight security
improvement by making the 2-hop neighbor relations more resilient to
short-term quality attacks (such as radio interference) on links. You
could add that to the Security Considerations section, but there is no
need to hold up the document while you think about that.

I will start the IETF last call.

Adrian

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this
type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

        Publication as Proposed Standard is requested. This is indicated in the title
        page header, and is appropriate since it updates the standard track
        RFC 6130 and RFC 7181.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be
found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:
        The link quality mechanism of the MANET Neighborhood Discovery
        Protocol (NHDP) enables "ignoring" some 1-hop neighbors if the
        measured link quality from that 1-hop neighbor is below an acceptable
        threshold, while still retaining the corresponding link information
        as acquired from HELLO message exchange.  This allows immediate
        reinstatement of the 1-hop neighbor if the link quality later
        improves sufficiently.

        NHDP also collects information about symmetric 2-hop neighbors.
        However it specifies that if a link from a symmetric 1-hop neighbor
        ceases being symmetric, including while "ignored" as described above,
        then corresponding symmetric 2-hop neighbors are removed.  This may
        lead to symmetric 2-hop neighborhood information being permanently
        removed (until further HELLO messages are received) if the link
        quality of a symmetric 1-hop neighbor drops below the acceptable
        threshold, even if only for a moment.

        This specification updates RFC6130 "Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET)
        Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)", and RFC7181 "The Optimized
        Link State Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2)" to permit retaining,
        but ignoring, symmetric 2-hop information when the link quality from
        the corresponding 1-hop neighbor drops below the acceptable
        threshold.  This allows immediate reinstatement of the symmetric
        2-hop neighbor if the link quality later improves sufficiently, thus
        making the symmetric 2-hop neighborhood more "robust".

Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there
controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was
particularly rough?

        A question was raised by one participant about whether it is appropriate
        to claim this work as an optimization with providing quantified measurements,
        however, the working group felt that the improvements offered a quite clearly
        an optimization in terms of reduced message exchanges and so no further
        documentation was necessary. The consensus behind publication of this
      document as an Proposed Standard RFC appears solid.

Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of
vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers
that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in
important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course
(briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

        There are multiple implementations.
        No MIB doctor, Media Type or other expert reviews have been done.

Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

        The Document Shepherd is Ulrich Herberg.
        The Responsible Area Director is Adrian Farrel.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document
Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain
why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

        The document shepherd has reviewed this document, both as part of the
        WG process, and prior to the issuance of the Publication Request.
        The document shepherd believes that this version of the document is
        ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the
reviews that have been performed?

        The document shepherd has no concerns with the depth or
        breadth of the reviews of this document.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

        This document does not need reviews beyond those normally done during
        AD and IESG processing.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this
document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of?
For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document,
or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document,
detail those concerns here.

        The document shepherd has no specific concerns with this document.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required
for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been
filed. If not, explain why?

        Each author has confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR requiring
        disclosure.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize
any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

        No IPR disclosures have been filed, referencing this document.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a
whole understand and agree with it?

        There has been solid WG consensus with understanding and agreement
        of the whole WG. There were some concerns regarding a missing
        quantitative evaluation of the performance improvement of the
        specified optimization from Abdussalam Baryun. Nobody else shared
        his concerns, and he can therefore be considered to be "in the rough".

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)

        No appeals have been threatened.
        No extreme discontent has been indicated.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See
http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks
are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

        IDNIT returns one minor warning (reference to "RFCthis").
        This will we be replaced by the RFC editor.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as
the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

        There is no required MIB doctor, media type, URI type or other formal review.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or
informative?

        All references have been identified as either normative or informative.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement
or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the
plan for their completion?

        All normative references are to already published RFC at the same,
        or on a higher, maturity level.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list
these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

        There are no downward references.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are
those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why,
and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the
WG considers it unnecessary.

        This document updates RFC6130 and RFC7181. This is listed on the title page
        header, and described in the abstract and in the introduction.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.

        The document has an empty IANA considerations section.

Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the
appropriate reservations in IANA registries.

        The document has an empty IANA considerations section.

Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.

        The document has an empty IANA considerations section.

Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are
defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC
5226).

        The document has an empty IANA considerations section.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations.
Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA
Experts for these new registries.

        The document has an empty IANA considerations section.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to
validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

        This document does not contain any sections written in a formal language.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this
type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

        Publication as Proposed Standard is requested. This is indicated in the title
        page header, and is appropriate since it updates the standard track
        RFC 6130 and RFC 7181.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be
found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:
        The link quality mechanism of the MANET Neighborhood Discovery
        Protocol (NHDP) enables "ignoring" some 1-hop neighbors if the
        measured link quality from that 1-hop neighbor is below an acceptable
        threshold, while still retaining the corresponding link information
        as acquired from HELLO message exchange.  This allows immediate
        reinstatement of the 1-hop neighbor if the link quality later
        improves sufficiently.

        NHDP also collects information about symmetric 2-hop neighbors.
        However it specifies that if a link from a symmetric 1-hop neighbor
        ceases being symmetric, including while "ignored" as described above,
        then corresponding symmetric 2-hop neighbors are removed.  This may
        lead to symmetric 2-hop neighborhood information being permanently
        removed (until further HELLO messages are received) if the link
        quality of a symmetric 1-hop neighbor drops below the acceptable
        threshold, even if only for a moment.

        This specification updates RFC6130 "Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET)
        Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)", and RFC7181 "The Optimized
        Link State Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2)" to permit retaining,
        but ignoring, symmetric 2-hop information when the link quality from
        the corresponding 1-hop neighbor drops below the acceptable
        threshold.  This allows immediate reinstatement of the symmetric
        2-hop neighbor if the link quality later improves sufficiently, thus
        making the symmetric 2-hop neighborhood more "robust".

Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there
controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was
particularly rough?

        There were no particular points of contention in the WG process, and the
        consensus behind publication of this document as an Proposed Standard RFC
        appears solid.

Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of
vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers
that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in
important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course
(briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

        There are multiple implementations.
        No MIB doctor, Media Type or other expert reviews have been done.

Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

        The Document Shepherd is Ulrich Herberg.
        The Responsible Area Director is Adrian Farrel.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document
Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain
why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

        The document shepherd has reviewed this document, both as part of the
        WG process, and prior to the issuance of the Publication Request.
        The document shepherd believes that this version of the document is
        ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the
reviews that have been performed?

        The document shepherd has no concerns with the depth or
        breadth of the reviews of this document.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

        This document does not need reviews beyond those normally done during
        AD and IESG processing.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this
document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of?
For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document,
or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document,
detail those concerns here.

        The document shepherd has no specific concerns with this document.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required
for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been
filed. If not, explain why?

        Each author has confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR requiring
        disclosure.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize
any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

        No IPR disclosures have been filed, referencing this document.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a
whole understand and agree with it?

        There has been solid WG consensus with understanding and agreement
        of the whole WG. There were some concerns regarding a missing
        quantitative evaluation of the performance improvement of the
        specified optimization from Abdussalam Baryun. Nobody else shared
        his concerns, and he can therefore be considered to be "in the rough".

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)

        No appeals have been threatened.
        No extreme discontent has been indicated.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See
http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks
are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

        IDNIT returns one minor warning (reference to "RFCthis").
        This will we be replaced by the RFC editor.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as
the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

        There is no required MIB doctor, media type, URI type or other formal review.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or
informative?

        All references have been identified as either normative or informative.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement
or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the
plan for their completion?

        All normative references are to already published RFC at the same,
        or on a higher, maturity level.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list
these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

        There are no downward references.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are
those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why,
and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the
WG considers it unnecessary.

        This document updates RFC6130 and RFC7181. This is listed on the title page
        header, and described in the abstract and in the introduction.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.

        The document has an empty IANA considerations section.

Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the
appropriate reservations in IANA registries.

        The document has an empty IANA considerations section.

Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.

        The document has an empty IANA considerations section.

Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are
defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC
5226).

        The document has an empty IANA considerations section.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations.
Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA
Experts for these new registries.

        The document has an empty IANA considerations section.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to
validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

        This document does not contain any sections written in a formal language.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

        Publication as Proposed Standard is requested. This is indicated in the title
        page header, and is appropriate since it updates the standard track
        RFC 6130 and RFC 7181.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:
        The link quality mechanism of the MANET Neighborhood Discovery
        Protocol (NHDP) enables "ignoring" some 1-hop neighbors if the
        measured link quality from that 1-hop neighbor is below an acceptable
        threshold, while still retaining the corresponding link information
        as acquired from HELLO message exchange.  This allows immediate
        reinstatement of the 1-hop neighbor if the link quality later
        improves sufficiently.

        NHDP also collects information about symmetric 2-hop neighbors.
        However it specifies that if a link from a symmetric 1-hop neighbor
        ceases being symmetric, including while "ignored" as described above,
        then corresponding symmetric 2-hop neighbors are removed.  This may
        lead to symmetric 2-hop neighborhood information being permanently
        removed (until further HELLO messages are received) if the link
        quality of a symmetric 1-hop neighbor drops below the acceptable
        threshold, even if only for a moment.

        This specification updates RFC6130 "Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET)
        Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)", and RFC7181 "The Optimized
        Link State Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2)" to permit retaining,
        but ignoring, symmetric 2-hop information when the link quality from
        the corresponding 1-hop neighbor drops below the acceptable
        threshold.  This allows immediate reinstatement of the symmetric
        2-hop neighbor if the link quality later improves sufficiently, thus
        making the symmetric 2-hop neighborhood more "robust".


Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

        There were no particular points of contention in the WG process, and the
        consensus behind publication of this document as an Proposed Standard RFC
        appears solid.


Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

        There are multiple implementations.
        No MIB doctor, Media Type or other expert reviews have been done.

Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

        The Document Shepherd is Ulrich Herberg.
        The Responsible Area Director is Adrian Farrel.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

        The document shepherd has reviewed this document, both as part of the
        WG process, and prior to the issuance of the Publication Request.
        The document shepherd believes that this version of the document is
        ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

        The document shepherd has no concerns with the depth or
        breadth of the reviews of this document.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

        This document does not need reviews beyond those normally done during
        AD and IESG processing.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

        The document shepherd has no specific concerns with this document.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

        Each author has confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR requiring
        disclosure.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

        No IPR disclosures have been filed, referencing this document.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

        There has been solid WG consensus with understanding and agreement
        of the whole WG. There were some concerns regarding a missing
        quantitative evaluation of the performance improvement of the
        specified optimization from Abdussalam Baryun. Nobody else shared
        his concerns, and he can therefore be considered to be "in the rough".

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

        No appeals have been threatened.
        No extreme discontent has been indicated.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

        IDNIT returns one minor warning (reference to "RFCthis").
        This will we be replaced by the RFC editor.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

        There is no required MIB doctor, media type, URI type or other formal review.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

        All references have been identified as either normative or informative.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

        All normative references are to already published RFC at the same,
        or on a higher, maturity level.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

        There are no downward references.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

        This document updates RFC6130 and RFC7181. This is listed on the title page header,
        and described in the abstract and in the introduction.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.

        The document has an empty IANA considerations section.

Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.

        The document has an empty IANA considerations section.

Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.

        The document has an empty IANA considerations section.

Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

        The document has an empty IANA considerations section.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

        The document has an empty IANA considerations section.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

        This document does not contain any sections written in a formal language.